OA Week 2016

The last of our OA Week 2016 blogs is a brief look into the topic of Open Access Monographs.

This is quite a contentious issue and there are currently a number of projects looking into how monographs can be made open access. Many of the questions surrounding OA monographs are concerned with how the monograph form will be preserved in an OA model and how an open access monograph business model will be viable?

What is evident from the research being undertaken is that it will not be a similar process to how we make an article or conference paper OA, and therefore will need to be approached in a different manner. As Geoffrey Crossick notes in his report to HEFCE on Monographs and Open Access:

“It is very clear, however, that extending open access to books is not easy. From licensing and copyright to business models and quality, the issues that must be tackled are thorny and numerous [however] Open access can solve important issues about accessibility, it can enhance the ways in which we publish, use and interact with books, and has the potential to revitalise the academic community’s connection with the peer review, publication and dissemination of books” (Crossick, 2015, p.4).

Some publishers and academic presses are currently testing new business models which will enable researchers to publish their monographs open access, however, it is currently very expensive to do! Edinburgh University Press are currently quoting a £10,000 APC to make a monograph OA and this only applies to authored research monographs – so edited books and critical editions are not covered.

Another alternative model has been suggested by a consortium called ‘Knowledge Unlatched’ which is made up of member libraries who pay the costs of making scholarly monographs open access. If you’re interested to learn more there’s a lot of useful information on their website: http://www.knowledgeunlatched.org/

There are many differing opinions and ideas surrounding how we could transition into open access monograph publishing but for the moment it does seem to be an area where there are more questions than answers.

If you would like an in depth introduction to open access monographs you should check out Goldsmiths Panel Discussion “Open Access Monographs and Publishing Models: Collaborative Ways Forward”, which discusses how OA monographs could be managed and how it may support or disadvantage their particular professional sector and ethical goals:

The second of our Open Access Week 2016 blogs will focus on creative commons licenses and how they can help you share your work.

Research has shown that one of the main factors that prevent researchers and practitioners from depositing their work in an institutional repository is fears over copyright infringement (Creaser, 2010 p. 57). In our previous blog we showed you how to make your manuscripts openly available via the “green” open access route by using the Sherpa/Romeo tool to ensure you don’t infringe the copyright policy of the publisher.

But you may be wondering, how can you protect your own work when you share it online and ensure you get the attribution you deserve? The answer is – use a creative commons license!

So, what is creative commons?

Creative Commons is a global non-profit organization dedicated to supporting the creation of a global digital commons. Creative commons seek to achieve this by opening up access to knowledge and creative works which can then be used by the public for free.

Whenever you create a new artwork, take a photo or write an article it is automatically considered “all rights reserved” in the eyes of copyright law. This means that others cannot re-use or remix your work without seeking permission first. But, if you want others to be able to re-use your work you can use a creative commons license to help you do this.

Creative commons licenses do not replace copyright!

Creative Commons licenses are not an alternative to copyright but work in partnership with copyright laws and licensing. By default, copyright law allows only limited reuses without your permission. CC licenses lets you grant additional permissions to the public, allowing reuse on the terms best suited to your needs while reserving some rights for yourself.

When you add a CC license to your work you can decide which rights you’d like to keep, the license then clearly conveys to those using your work how they’re permitted to use it without having to ask you in advance. So it works positively for both the creator and user!

What licenses are available?

Each license can contain a mixture of the following features.

Attribution: All CC licenses require that others who use your work must give you credit.

ShareAlike: This feature means that you will let others copy, distribute, display, perform, and modify your work, as long as they distribute any modified work on the same terms.

NoDerivatives: This feature means that you let others copy, distribute, display, and perform only original copies of your work. If they want to modify your work, they must get your permission first.

NonCommercial: This feature means that you let others copy, distribute, display, perform, and (unless you have chosen NoDerivatives) modify and use your work for any purpose other than commercially unless they get your permission first.

Based on the features that you have chosen from the options above, you will then get a license that clearly indicates how other people may use your creative work.

The license options are shown in this handy info-graphic:

How do I add a CC license to my work in RADAR?

You can easily add a CC license to your work when you are uploading to RADAR. As you can see from the screenshot below, when you are in the ‘upload’ tab in RADAR and you have selected the item you would like to upload and make available you will see a ‘license’ option. Here you can open a drop down box by clicking on it and selecting the license that most suits your needs:

You can also use CC licensed material in your own work!

The wide adoption of CC licenses has enabled the creation of a globally accessible pool of resources that includes the work of artists, educators, scientists, and governments. To encourage re-use of this material the creative commons site lists many reliable sources of CC licensed material you can use in your work without infringing copyright, see:

The first in our series of OA Week 2016 blogs will explain the difference between the two different types of open access and hopefully dispel some of the myths around them.

It’s important to note that open access does not mean papers are not peer reviewed. In both open access models, papers undergo the same rigorous peer-review processes as in traditional academic publishing, and most academic journals have now developed OA routes for their authors.

Within open access there are two main options:

Green open access

Gold open access

Green open access:

Green open access is a free model; authors do not need to pay to make their paper openly accessible.

Making your paper available via the green route involves depositing a version of your paper in an institutional repository such as GSA’s RADAR. Publishers often stipulate the paper must be embargoed for a fixed period before the paper can be made publicly available. Embargo periods may differ in length from 6 – 36 months and vary in subject fields.

What version of your paper can you make available under Green OA?

The version of the paper you can archive varies according to the publisher’s archiving policy but most major publishers usually allow you to make the ‘accepted’ version of your paper available.

The accepted version, or “post print” as it sometimes referred to, is the author-created version that has been updated to include all changes resulting from peer review, as well as any changes of an academic nature requested by the journal editor or conference organiser.

The accepted manuscript is not the same as the copy-edited, typeset or published paper – these versions are known as ‘proofs’ or ‘versions of record’, and publishers do not normally allow authors to make these openly accessible.

Why should I make my paper available through green open access?

Self-archiving your papers in RADAR will increase their availability and discoverability and removes the need to pay open access charges. It should also be noted that the GSA’s Institutional preference is for Green OA via our institutional repository, RADAR.

Gold OA involves authors publishing in open-access journals that do not receive income through reader subscriptions. Publishing in an open access journal may therefore require an article processing charge (APC) to be paid.

What version of your paper can you archive under Gold Open Access?

The Gold option allows you to archive the final published version in an institutional or subject repository without an embargo. This means that as soon as it’s published its openly available to anyone and not kept behind a pay wall.

So, how do you find out what your open access options are?

To find out your open access options you can check publisher policies and embargo periods on the Sherpa/Romeo service by searching the name of the journal, publisher or ISSN.

In this example I have searched for the open access policy of the journal ‘Northern Scotland’. From the screenshot above we can see the publisher allows green open access and the author accepted version (post refereeing) can be made available on the repository without an embargo. It is worth noting, however, that this is quite a liberal policy – most major publishers such as Elsevier and Taylor and Francis usually stipulate embargo’s between 12 -24 months for green open access. So it is always best practice to check their policy on Sherpa/Romeo before uploading your paper to RADAR!

The RADAR team are here to help!

Don’t forget the RADAR team are always happy to provide information on open access and publisher policies. If you are interested in making your research open access but don’t know where to start please don’t hesitate to get in touch by emailing us at radar@gsa.ac.uk